Leave a Comment Sagesse
BREAKING: Pacific Justice Institute DENIED by court; Schwarzenegger, Brown will not be forced to defend Prop 8
September 2, 2010
By Eden James
A few days ago, the right-wing extremists at the Pacific Justice Institute went to California’s 3rd district appellate court to try to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend Prop 8 before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
No dice, PJI. This breaking news just came in from the 3rd District California appellate court (h/t Kathleen):
Beckley v. Schwarzenegger et al.
Case: C065920, 3rd District
Disposition date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2010-09-01
Disposition description: Petition summarily denied by order
Disposition status as of 2010-09-02: Final
Notes: Scotland, P.J. (BRo)
For more information on this case, go to:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=1953899
More will be added to this post, as news develops.
UPDATE BY EDEN: The Sacramento Bee quotes a rather defiant PJI spokesperson:
“I guess we’ll have to file another emergency petition with the California Supreme Court,” said Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute.
UPDATE BY EDEN: Here’s another interpretation of what the court told PJI:
UPDATE BY EDEN: And it’s official — the PJI is appealing to the California Supreme Court:
The institute now plans to take the matter to the California Supreme Court, Chief Counsel Kevin Snider said Thursday.
“We are disappointed that the appellate court showed indecisiveness in trying to prevent a constitutional crisis,” Snider said. “They didn’t want to deal with it.”
Filed under: Right-wing,Trial analysis
230 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
bJason | September 2, 2010 at 4:50 am
fail!!!
2.
DazedWheels | September 2, 2010 at 4:51 am
Great news!
3.
BradK | September 2, 2010 at 4:51 am
Talk about your gangplank appeals….
4.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 4:52 am
Subscribe
5.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | September 2, 2010 at 4:52 am
Ditto
6.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:53 am
Sub-subscribe.
This thing was kicked to the gutter with amazing speed. Good job, 3rd District Court of Appeals!
7.
JC (1 of the 18,000 | September 2, 2010 at 4:54 am
Whew. (But I thought this would happen, given this group's insightful analysis.) But whew anyway.
8.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 4:54 am
must clicky box . . . must clicky box . . .
9.
bJason | September 2, 2010 at 4:54 am
Kathleen Rocks!
Do you have a link to the Order?
10.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 4:56 am
Heh… so was this a "Go away kid, you bother me" a la W C Fields?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
11.
Aya | September 2, 2010 at 4:56 am
Someone mentioned this was the 3rd district court of appeals. So this was an entirely different suit from the 9th circuit appeal that's currently going on? I just wanted to clarify.
Geez, think of how much money could go to feed the poor and homeless, if only they weren't so busy wasting money "defending" America from "teh gays!"
12.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 2, 2010 at 4:58 am
LOL! hope all such attempts like this crumble and fail in the future! Here comes the STORM like NOM predicted….however, its a storm of justice!
13.
Caitlin | September 2, 2010 at 4:58 am
Now can we take legal action against them for misuse of the word "Justice"? (Yes, that's a joke. Mostly.)
14.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 4:58 am
I can't find it on the Court's website. I suspect (but don't know for certain – it's that procedure stuff again) that "summarily denied by order" means there is not reason or opinion accompanying the order.
I've sent a note to Trish, asking if she can get a copy. If I get my hands on it, I'll upload to Scribd.
15.
Gregory in Salt Lake | September 2, 2010 at 4:59 am
LOL! sometimes I click…other days I just scroll….don't know what works best…I don't want to miss anything!
16.
Felyx | September 2, 2010 at 5:00 am
Geez!!! With enemies like this who needs expert lawyers!!! These people just keeping making it better and better for us!
Much longer of this, people will just start voting down DOMA's just to get these wacko to shut up!!!
Felyx
PS: This would be so freakin' hilarious if it wasn't so damned sad!
17.
Ronnie | September 2, 2010 at 5:04 am
ROFL…..<3…Ronnie
18.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 5:04 am
Yes, Aya. This was an attempt by the PJI to force the governor and ag to file notice of appeal with the 9th Circuit. Because they were trying to make the claim using California law, it was filed in the California court system, not the federal courts where Perry is being appealed.
19.
Leo | September 2, 2010 at 5:05 am
Yes: this is an action in a state court, not a federal one. If PJI were to appeal, they would be appealing to California Supreme Court.
20.
bJason | September 2, 2010 at 5:06 am
I knew if you didn't have one there must not be one!
thanks
21.
Joel | September 2, 2010 at 5:06 am
I have to admit, I'm a little puzzled by that as well. Any insight, anybody?
22.
Josiah | September 2, 2010 at 5:07 am
Sometimes I wish that comments on this blog had a "like" option, like they do on Facebook. I don't have anything to say, just that I like the image of the court holding these losers at arm's length, Fields-style.
23.
Joel | September 2, 2010 at 5:09 am
Ah. Thanks. And ignore the post after this one
24.
Dave in CA | September 2, 2010 at 5:12 am
Too bad we can't get sound effects for when these kinds of posts are uploaded – you know, like a trombone slide of "wahh wahh wahh wahh.'
25.
BradK | September 2, 2010 at 5:16 am
A flushing toilet would seem more appropriate.
26.
JC (1 of the 18,000 | September 2, 2010 at 5:18 am
Another example of wishing there was a like button. LIKE LIKE LIKE
27.
Mark | September 2, 2010 at 5:20 am
What is next? They still have until September 11 to try something else. Why do I think that we haven't heard the end yet?
28.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:20 am
Is it wrong that I am doing a little "nanny nanny boo boo" happy dance in my office chair at my desk at work?
29.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:21 am
I wonder if, having filed it in California state court, they can appeal it upwards? Oh LAWYER types? Any idea if this one is dead or if it can go on?
30.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 5:22 am
hehehehehehehe
Perfect!!
31.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 5:23 am
Trust me, they'll appeal it to the CA Supreme Court.
32.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 5:23 am
They can appeal to California Supreme Court.
33.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 5:23 am
Appeal to be filed in three . . . two . . . one . . .
34.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 5:24 am
Lovely!!
35.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:24 am
I want a video of that.
36.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:24 am
And that is both because PJI crashed and burned with this motion, but also because they had to have had some billable hours that they now have to eat. And the more of THOSE that happen, the less they have to spend on other things that are more annoying.
37.
Bolt | September 2, 2010 at 5:27 am
I don't know what's next, but it's a bit entertaining. The anti-gay religious fascists are powerless. This is a taste of real tangible legal protection.
38.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:27 am
Sheeet. (already sweeping back the blue chips)
39.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:27 am
I tried to take one with my cell phone, but I come out looking like a drunken manatee reflected in a fun house mirror, so I am gonna pass on uploading THAT one. Sorry.
40.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:29 am
Even better!
41.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 5:29 am
Kate, Kate, Kate — the petition that they filed was and still is garbage. If you're gonna keep playing with blue chips, maybe make them into sprinkles and put them on cookies?
42.
Freddy | September 2, 2010 at 5:29 am
Ok, so all I could think of was….
Good by cruel world.
(That would be PJI's cruel world)
And checking the box……
43.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 5:30 am
Now I really want a video.
44.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:30 am
On the upside, Kate, you are going to be so tired from all the sweeping back and forth that you are going to have no energy left to worry.
And when we finally discover that those blue chips were just some old eggshell fragments that were lying around, even your chickens will be giggling.
SMOOCHES.
45.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:33 am
Now you know why I didn't follow the actual trial. Aren't you glad???
46.
Suzanne | September 2, 2010 at 5:34 am
I've seen "teh gays" in comments on Facebook among my equality-minded friends. Anyone know the history of that phrase?
P.S. Another lurker who's been here since the very beginning, "coming out". I adore you guys, I don't feel nearly as alone in my advocacy efforts.
47.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 5:34 am
This calls for a blend of Star Trek and the Barry Sisters:
Hava nagila! Everybody Dance!!!
48.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 5:35 am
Kinda helps to paste the link to the video, doesn't it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD5nG2jEVgc
49.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 5:35 am
There might be an order posted later, but there won't be any opinion with it.
50.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 5:35 am
So where's the reaction from NOM? I want to see all those H8ers on the wambulance.
51.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 5:35 am
Oh, Kate. You would have LOVED the trial. Our attorneys and the expert witnesses for our side kicked ass!!
52.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 5:36 am
LOL
53.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:38 am
But… but… manatee… in a desk chair… drunk… and wiggling…. NOT A PRETTY PICTURE. I would hope that the first thing you see of me would not be QUITE that weird looking.
54.
Dave in CA | September 2, 2010 at 5:39 am
And a belated "thank you" from me to you, Richard, for posting my letter at your site.
55.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:41 am
Yeah … I learned that too late. But trust me, I would still have floundered in blue chips. The justice system scares me.
56.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 5:41 am
Not really sure where the trem 'teh gayz' came from originally but has been sort of adopted by many. It basically shows how silly the H8rs can be when referring to 'us'….like we are some plague or something.
And thanks for de-lurking!!
Here have a cookie and some MILK
57.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 5:43 am
I am very fond of manatees. I have even been swimming with them.
58.
MJFargo | September 2, 2010 at 5:44 am
And I was having a pretty darned good day anyway…so a big thanks to you folks for getting the news out so soon (I believe that would Kathleen I'm referring to). Happy, happy, happy.
59.
MJFargo | September 2, 2010 at 5:46 am
I wonder if the earthquake in the East Bay this morning was really the sound of the proponents getting the news….
60.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:47 am
"teh gays" is an internet meme. Leet speak is that goofiness where people type things like "Pwnage !1!!1011011!!" and other incomprehensible things.
Leet, also known as eleet or leetspeak, is an alternative alphabet for the English language that is used primarily on the Internet. It uses various combinations of ASCII characters to replace Latinate letters. For example, leet spellings of the word leet include 1337 and l33t; eleet may be spelled 31337 or 3l33t.
The term leet is derived from the word elite. The leet alphabet is a specialized form of symbolic writing. Leet may also be considered a substitution cipher, although many dialects or linguistic varieties exist in different online communities…
…The original driving force of new vocabulary in Leet were common misspellings and typing errors such as "teh" (generally considered lolspeak), and intentional misspellings, especially the "z" at the end of words ("skillz"). Another prominent example of a surviving Leet expression is w00t, an exclamation of joy.
Basically, it was a way for pimply teenage boys to think they were special and smarter than all the rest of us.
The rest of us speak English and know better.
61.
Ronnie | September 2, 2010 at 5:49 am
To those against Equality, NOM, Fundies, Louis (Hi Louis!), Brainless Brown Suit (Brian Brown), Maggie "Shoe Flinger" Gallagher, etc. etc. etc…….
NEENER!!!…..NEENER!!!!!…..FAIL!!!!…..<3…Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/user/spricket24#p/u/19/1G5…
62.
Ronnie | September 2, 2010 at 5:54 am
LOL….thought it would embed….<3…Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G5ekULBjic
63.
Josiah | September 2, 2010 at 5:55 am
That's hilarious, Richard! I love it!
64.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 5:56 am
Kate… If you're playing with blue chips, make sure they're poker chips and not stocks… you'd loose too much money playing with blue chip securities than you will with a $10 chip in Texas Hold'em.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
65.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 5:59 am
Swimming they have a sort of graceful, harmless, charm about them. Sitting in a cubicle floundering about in a haze of legalistic glee (and also thinking that soon I will be done for the day and can go out and get my hair done then have dinner with my sister in law), not nearly as graceful, and certainly less charming. I don't think we even want to analyze whether it is harmless or not.
66.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 6:00 am
"Teh" is an internet meme that started from people typing too quickly. It's also part of "l337 5p33K" (leet speak) which is an internet gamers language. Calling something "teh ghey" or "teh gay" is a way of poking fun at how little opponents to equal rights actually know about gays and how they make up lies (and believe lies) that are spread.
67.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 6:00 am
I was still typing but you said it all!
68.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 6:06 am
ROFL!!! that sums up NOM's normal responses pretty succinctly.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
69.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:06 am
They're chips of falling sky, Andrew. I see them a lot during all of this legal stuff….
70.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:09 am
And that they are lousy typists?
71.
Ed | September 2, 2010 at 6:10 am
Not a lawyer, hell, I'm not even a college graduate yet…..
But….If the Cali Supremes uphold this, then that means there won't be an appeal to the 9th circuit because there wont be standing? In which case, Walker's ruling stands, but only for Cali?
Help?!? in understanding
Ed
72.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 6:10 am
Heh… I'm sorry if it's disrespectful, but I can't hear Hava Nagila without thinking of Alan Sherman's version, Harvey and Sheila:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roAWodrsZXI
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
73.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 6:10 am
Not only that, the one "expert" witness the other side had actually reinforced the case in favor of ending marriage discrimination.
74.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 6:12 am
Okay, Kate. I'm officially jealous now. I love manatees. I have two stuffed ones (both named Hugh …), and I "adopted" a live one for my husband's birthday gift one year. They are beautiful, gentle critters … and I would *love* to swim well enough to play with them in the water.
Love,
Fiona (who swims pretty much like a rock due to claustrophobia when the water is over her head)
75.
Bonobo | September 2, 2010 at 6:12 am
Loved it Ronnie. And so appropriate too. (I also have a neighbor I should send it too.)
76.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 6:13 am
Ed, we don't know yet.
The 9th Circuit is going to have a hearing on the appeal, including the question whether the proponents have standing to appeal, the week of Dec. 6.
If the proponents do not have standing, and if no one succeeds in forcing the AG or Gov. to appeal (unlikely they could do that), then Walker's ruling will stand, and there will be marriage equality in California.
77.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 6:16 am
I've taken to calling Kate "Chicken Little" (in a very affectionate way) Andrew, because she does worry.
But hey, Kate, if you can turn those chips into blue chip stocks, then sell them for a good price, you can then afford to fly the whole motley crew to your ranch for a sleepover.
78.
Lynn E | September 2, 2010 at 6:17 am
You have to wait for that stuff. They're still looking up "summarily" in their dictionaries.
79.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:17 am
Fiona, you don't need to be able to swim well at all. In fact, I used a snorkel vest so I didn't even have to think about swimming and could just concentrate on photography. It's an experience you simply must have. They swim right up at stare at you through your snorkel mask — which means you get to (now, sit down for this) actually kiss their sweet little faces. I even have video of the experience, and it's one I hope to repeat.
80.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:19 am
"wambulance" hee hee hee
LIKE
81.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 6:20 am
The only thing I'd add to that is that there is still this appeal of Imperial County's hanging in the wings. The 9th Circuit will also look at whether IC has standing to appeal at the same time.
82.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:20 am
Do they even have dictionaries, other than maybe the Dr. Seuss Dictionary?
Kate
Whose chickens really do lay green eggs. (No, no ham.)
83.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 6:21 am
(in my best histrionic voice) And it's just not TRUE. We are GREAT TYPISTS! STOP making FUN OF US NOM!
Oh… wait… that was TYPE CAST. Never mind.
84.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 6:22 am
Any time!
85.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 6:23 am
It will only be counted as disrespectful if we aren't supposed to laugh! That is hilarious!!!!
86.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 6:24 am
Ah, yes, how could I have forgotten Imperial County? Much as I'd like to . . .
87.
Carpool Cookie | September 2, 2010 at 6:24 am
Buh-bye, P.J.I.
88.
rf | September 2, 2010 at 6:24 am
I wonder if that much thought went into "kitteh"
89.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 6:31 am
Have a tequilla!
Have two tequillas!
Have three tequillas!
Now have four!
Of course, that leads to the second verse, which goes:
"One tequilla, two tequillas, three tequillas, floor."
90.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 6:31 am
Excommunication for the whores!!!!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
91.
Ozymandias71 | September 2, 2010 at 6:31 am
HA!
By golly, that felt good so I'll say it again:
HA!
Ahhh, one more time…
HA!
And with great sincerity to PJI, those 27 Republicans and (naturally NOM)
NEENER-NEENER-NEEEEENER!!
Love,
Ozy
92.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 6:34 am
Honestly, Kathleen… JUST when we got Kate calmed down!
Actually, it is good that you mentioned this, as I had forgotten it too. Does that get ruled on with the rest of the appeal, or is it separate?
93.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 6:36 am
I'm going with a rousing chorus of "neener neener nee-ner" instead.
94.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:37 am
But Anonygrl, I had not forgotten this. You can bet on it.
95.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 6:39 am
The 9th Circuit has assigned IC's appeal its own case number, but the Court has set the same expedited schedule — same briefing schedule, oral arguments, etc. So, although it's technically a separate case, the Court will be considering it at the same time as Proponents' appeal.
96.
bluprntguy | September 2, 2010 at 6:41 am
So, I'm trying to get myself excommunicated from the Catholic church for pretty obvious reasons. In the process, I was at my old church's website and saw that they posted their fiscal summary. Unless I'm missing something, they receive around $1.4 Million a year in donations, of which only about $25,000 (or about 1.5%) goes to the poor and needy.
I guess Jesus must have said give, give, give – unto yourselves.
http://www.sainttherese.net/fiscalyearend.htm
97.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 6:43 am
You'd be surprised how much thought actually goes into lospeak. It's fun, really — just another way to play with the language (because English really IS a silly language).
Most of the people who chat in lolspeak on ICHC are actually highly educated. Many are fluent in multiple languages (hence sometimes posts in lolfrench), and quite a few are either proofreaders or writers.
It's kind of fun to play without having to adhere to the strict language rules we're used to.
/digress
98.
Eden James | September 2, 2010 at 6:45 am
Check out the response from PJI in the update just posted on this thread.
And enjoy the YouTube I added as well.
99.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 6:49 am
REALLY? THAT was their comment?
“I guess we’ll have to file another emergency petition with the California Supreme Court,”
Does that translate to "WAAAH! Mommy said NO! Better go ask Daddy." and the four year old harumphing off to go find Dad?
100.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 6:49 am
LOLSpeak is much more fun than l337 5p33k!
Kitteh is LOLSpeak.
Now, ware iz mah bukkit?
101.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:49 am
Ex-Catholic here. Why do you need to have yourself excommunicated? Can't you just do it by default, in that you quit going? I had a Mormon friend who had to get herself excommunicated from the Mormon church, but that was just so the sweet little old Mormon ladies would stop coming by her house with cookies to "talk." But the Catholic church? I'd be very interested in hearing why it's important to you to do so.
102.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 6:50 am
Oh, please. As if they didn't expect this and have that appeal drafted already.
103.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:51 am
I guess we’ll have to file another emergency petition with the California Supreme Court,” said Kevin Snider, chief counsel for the Sacramento-based Pacific Justice Institute.
How much does all this cost them in legal fees????
104.
Anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 6:51 am
(I hit submit too soon. I meant to add)
I would think they would train these guys in law school to say things like:
"We respectfully disagree with the lower court's ruling, and we will be seeking redress with an appeal."
in their sleep!
Heck, maybe *I* should be a lawyer. Or at least the PR person for one.
105.
Ronnie | September 2, 2010 at 6:53 am
"Me too neither…..herumph"….bwaaaaaa….<3…Ronnie
106.
fiona64 | September 2, 2010 at 6:56 am
My SIL's chickens lay green eggs, too — and sometimes blue ones.
Aracanas! (I think I spelled that correctly, but am not entirely certain.)
Love,
Fiona
107.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 6:56 am
Dave you will not believe this, but I just went in to put the post up so that everybody can comment and I can get back with them via email about recipes for the P8TT Family Cookbook, and World Wide News Flash put a trackback on their site to the comment with your letter in it! OMG! This could mean even more people find out about P8TT and the work being done to end discrimination!
108.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 6:57 am
You can't put a price on saving the world from teh gheys.
109.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 6:59 am
LIKE!!!!
110.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 6:59 am
Now they should go and get into their PJ's, LOL!
111.
Bob | September 2, 2010 at 7:00 am
I like pushing for ex-communication, and I think it would be great hudge groups did it, sort of masses leaving the mass, make a thing of it.
if we go quietly away from our churches we're doing what they want. we need in some way to turn it into a celebration for ourselves, and hopefullly they have to do some paperwork , or preform some ritual, to make them aware of the process. thereby teachilng others how it can be done.
this is a form of acting up, in a civil manner, the church has rules , we just get them to enforce thos rules, hopefully publicly, we could invite groups to our ex-communications, like all the P8TTers, and have a party afterward, a coming out of church party. love it
112.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 7:01 am
And would this be sung to the same tune as the theme to The Banana Splits?
113.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 7:03 am
Very close — Aracaunas. They are originally from Peru.
114.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 7:03 am
I'm an Ex-Catholic too. Not by default or by excommunication. I told myself, "enough is enough". I couldn't be part of an corporation (and yes it is a corporation, not a religion) that actively tries to inflect harm on me and my family, while asking for a donation.
Sorry. I don't mean to insult any practicing Catholics. I couldn't reconcile myself with the what is being said about a minority (within) the church.
115.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 7:05 am
Makes sense — I like it. It's been a long time for me; may I still join the party?
116.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 2, 2010 at 7:05 am
An 'emergency petition'??? Why such an emergency?
Are teh gayz knocking the sky down again?
117.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 7:05 am
Here comes the wambulance… and look, Louis (Hi Louise!!) is driving.
LOL. I just can't stop laughing
118.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 7:08 am
Oh teh gay is here!!! Quick file the emergency petition. We'll stop it from spreading…..
119.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 7:08 am
Whatever it costs them, you can rest assured that they will inflate it worse than the markup on movie theatre popcorn when they tell their donors.
120.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 7:12 am
Is the party BYOB? I'll bring a side-dish
121.
Dave P. | September 2, 2010 at 7:13 am
….. like this?
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/zgcjjfqsmb–Sa…
122.
Shelly & Simie 4 | September 2, 2010 at 7:14 am
This is sosososososo AWESOME!!!!! We r thrilled to bits!!!! Now we just need to get the supreme court on our side and tell all these hatemongers 2 run to a comunist country they can rule cause they r outa here!!!! Have a great day all we ck in tomorrow!!
123.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 7:14 am
Hugh G. Manatee mite haz it, aifinkso.
*gigglol*
124.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 7:14 am
That's right. They're doing godz work.
125.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 7:16 am
Be careful where and with whom you file it. I understand that some of teh gayz work within the court system now.
Teh horrors!!!!
126.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 7:19 am
You understand that this didn't toss out an appeal of Walker's ruling, right? This is just the California Appeals Court saying they won't even consider forcing the governor or attorney general to enter the appeal in the 9th Circuit. The Proponents' appeal in the 9th Circuit is still there.
127.
Bob | September 2, 2010 at 7:20 am
@Kate, I'm sure you could , and I think we could do some research on it.
I'm not catholic, but forced the same issues with my church,
if you were once baptized in the church you are catholic forever, they just count you in their numbers, but they don't really care a hoot about you or what you;re doing. that's why I think it's important that we sort of go um just wanted to check in here with you, and let you know I'm wearing big girl panties know, and I am aware of the lies and destruciton promoted by your money making organization.. and we would like to explore that option of excommunication that is available to severe us from this association. I'm sure the priest would just say go in peace, but we'd have to push for some public display , and I think that public observance, may in fact helpl many recovering catholics in the first step of the process.
Ex-communication had been taught , or we have been brainwashed into thinking it is the most vile thing that could happen, we're buying the churches opinion on that like everything else. So to avoid this horrid thing, we just slink off quietly,
I say turn it into a celebration, force the church to acknowldedge and practice it, blue chips, rainbow snowcones and the happy dance for all.
128.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 7:21 am
Sorry… I got the sky fallen references… I couldn't resist the chance to play on the pun of 'blue chips'
You know the neat thing about puns? the worse they are, the better they are!
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
129.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 7:24 am
As a major Star Trek fan (I watched the first episode on my folks B&W TV), I love this!
Made my day again, Richard!
130.
Bill | September 2, 2010 at 7:24 am
Could someone please get these babies their afternoon bottles and also a diaper change?
Seriously – what a bunch of sore losers.
It would be funny if their motives weren't so ugly.
131.
Judy | September 2, 2010 at 7:25 am
*RSVP: attending 'coming out of church party'*
Lifetime of believing in magic. No more.
I'm out. I'm free. I'm loving reality.
I'm loving our court system.
132.
Bennett | September 2, 2010 at 7:29 am
“They didn’t want to deal with it.” says Snider someone.
Oh, they dealt with it.
133.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 7:31 am
@ Fiona — bonus points for naming them "Hugh."
We have a framed painting of a mama & baby manatee in our family room. Manatees are so cute!
134.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 7:32 am
Ite, missa est.
135.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 7:33 am
Kate,
I have an Ameraucana that became egg-bound when trying to lay her first egg. I'm a relative neophyte with chickens, & didn't catch the problem for probably 48 hrs. A $214 trip to the vet, 2 weeks of giving her a liquid suspension of antibiotics (learning new skills in the process), etc, she is now laying eggs happily & normally. Neither the vet nor I were sure she'd recover &/or be able to lay unassisted, but YEAH!!!
Now, like you, I get green eggs, which I eat with veggie sausages.
Love,
Sheryl (& the chickens, goats, dogs, & cats)
136.
Steven | September 2, 2010 at 7:38 am
When the CA Supreme Court gets this appeal they will also LAUGH AT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DENIED DENIED……… I think our supreme court is pro lgbt.. yes, they ruled for prop 8, but they made a decision how prop 8 got on the ballot. not constitutionality of it..
137.
Freddy | September 2, 2010 at 7:38 am
Ok, so if I close my eyes when I am listening to this video, why do I start to think that I am listening to some Ex-Governor from the great state of Alaska?
138.
Bob | September 2, 2010 at 7:39 am
bluprntguy, do you know what the process is for ex-commkunication, or how we find out, it would be nice if they had some formal certificate stating it.
what have your results been like so far in getting yourself ex-communicated?
139.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 7:41 am
I like this part of PJI's statement:
“We are disappointed that the appellate court showed indecisiveness in trying to prevent a constitutional crisis,” Snider said. “They didn’t want to deal with it.”
Ah, I'd say the appellate court was anything but indecisive!
140.
Trish | September 2, 2010 at 7:44 am
Yeah, that word "no" is so indecisive.
141.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 7:44 am
Bob, if nothing else, I have to call the Raleigh diocese tomorrow anyway, because I have to become excommunicated before I finish the formalities of my conversion, and I will let everyone here know.
142.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 8:03 am
You guys are so fast with this stuff!
143.
Cat | September 2, 2010 at 8:12 am
The parties involved in defending Prop.8 seem to write or says things that, once removed of innuendos, false statements, misrepresentations, emotional qualifiers, personal opinions, references to natural disasters and references to religious texts, are almost completely blank.
Your Honor, I don't know…, I don't know…
All their arguments collapse into only two legal opinions: (1) voters have the right to define civil marriage by amending the California constitution, no questions asked. (2) The US constitution means one-man-one-woman when it says 'marriage', and that interpretation cannot be changed.
I think Walker countered those legal opinions quite clearly, I'd say. Any criticism on Walker's ruling that does not address these points is wining, or worse, hate.
144.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 8:13 am
The way I read that article, Ronnie, is that the law is already on the books. The petition is to have the statute repealed.
Or did I read it wrong?
145.
bluprntguy | September 2, 2010 at 8:13 am
It seems like you have to write your old church and tell them you are with another church or an atheist and then prove it to them. The church's philosophy is that you are always their child, no matter how badly they treat you or others.
This website seems to have a pretty good handle on the particulars, even noting what canon law to cite when you ask that they excommunicate you. I think their proposed letter is a little heavy handed…
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/catholic.exco…
So far, I've found out that my baptism was such a monumental event, that my parents couldn't remember exactly when it happened or where it occurred.
146.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 8:15 am
I wasn't always so fast. I have just learned so much about how to navigate YouTube from everybody here. But I remembered this song and felt that this was the best one for PJI and the others in their camp.
147.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 8:15 am
Thanks, Kate, we (vet, pullet, me, the Universe) all did our best & happily it worked out.
If you want details of the treatment (which would be of no interest to the non-chicken owners), feel free to send a Friend request to me on FaceBook & I'll fill you in. Hopefully, though, you'll never need it.
148.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 8:17 am
(& with regard to legal fees:)
teh payin', teh payin'
(Sorry. Sometimes I just can't help myself.)
149.
nightshayde | September 2, 2010 at 8:17 am
Of course, they are probably part of the crowd that thinks that "no" means "yes" if uttered by a woman wearing a short skirt or low-cut blouse.
I wonder, though. Is it the "n" or the "o" which is unclear?
150.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 8:19 am
@nightshayde, that's correct. The law is on the books and has been for many year, but it's not inforced– it might have been years ago, in isolated cases, but not now. It's like the DADT of Wisconsin.
Not sure if the law would be invoked in 2010, but it could be. If it is, you can bet there'd be a law suit.
151.
Ronnie | September 2, 2010 at 8:19 am
sorry..right..its already on the books…but still lets try to get this repealed….I'm serious do the anti-gays know anything about American History?….OMG what am I saying…of course they don't…. : | ….Ronnie
152.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 8:21 am
Sheryl, There are several people w/your name who show up in fb search. If you click on my name, it will take you to my fb page – would love to be fb friends!
153.
Joel | September 2, 2010 at 8:23 am
@ bluprntguy :
How does one prove one is an Atheist? By defaming the Bible? By saying "I don't believe in G-d" one hundred times? By reciting the Hail Mary backwards?
154.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 8:23 am
Kathleen,
I clicked on your name, but got a "page not found" error on FaceBook.
155.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 8:24 am
I'm always interested in veterinary treatments for all kinds of critters. But I don't do FB and wouldn't know how to send you a request, much less find your page………..
156.
Joel | September 2, 2010 at 8:25 am
"Summary judgment" pretty much spells out "decisive" for me.
157.
bb | September 2, 2010 at 8:25 am
I hit "send" too early.
I just wanted to say that I have a cousin in Eau Claire, and one of the reasons she won't marry her partner is because of this law. It could be invoked at any time, by any crazy law enforcement person.
That's not to say it has stopped every person from going to a legal state and get married, you just don't tell your neighbor who has a gruge about you. I would bet that a lot of the younger generation doesn't realize this law still exists… again, the law was enacted many years ago…
158.
bluprntguy | September 2, 2010 at 8:26 am
I agree. This appears to be an existing law. It would be interesting to find out if it has ever been used.
159.
JonT | September 2, 2010 at 8:32 am
Great idea.
160.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 8:34 am
Sheryl, I don't know how to account for that. The link seems to still be working for me, even after clearing cache, closing browser, etc. If you go to the facebook page "Prop 8 Trial Tracker", you'll find me on the wall at the page and should be able to click through to my page. THanks!
161.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 8:35 am
Kate,
I started my FB account so I could search for someone who might have made a "surrogate nursing device" for a litter of pups. She was young enough that I thought I could find her that way. (I did, but she'd never made the device.)
It is a good way to contact people without having to make your email address public in this kind of site. I wouldn't care if any of the community had it, but the trolls …
There must be some way to give you my email. Any ideas?
Sheryl
162.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 8:39 am
Sheryl — Yep; e-mail me at my throwaway address — backups96064 at yahoo.com, and I'll respond from my real one.
163.
bluprntguy | September 2, 2010 at 8:41 am
Joel – I had emailed everyone I knew that was Catholic when Proposition 8 was passed and let them know that they Knights of Columbus had spent 1.8 million dollars and that the church was heavily involved in passing Proposition 8. I also recently received a copy of an email from a fellow ex-parishioner that was derogatory to gays and lesbians, and responded to everyone including the pastor. I suspect it's pretty clear at this point that I don't believe their mumbo jumbo and find their continued involvement in eliminating other people's rights both offensive and demeaning as a human being.
164.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:43 am
LOL@ gangplank appeals, like that!
165.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 8:45 am
So …. when they take this petition to the Supreme Court, are they stuck with the contents of the one that the appellate court denied, or do they get to add more crapola to it?
166.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 8:46 am
I wish I could find a video for that Fosters "How to Speak Australian" commercial… the one where a guy is thrown out of a bar by a girl, and that's Australian for "No".
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
167.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 8:54 am
..and to piggyback on this excellent def of leetspeek (or " to pwnytail," perhaps?), the alternate spellings of "leetspeek" were developed by hackers as a way to avoid tripping law-enforcement internet filters (Echelon et al) seeking keywords pertaining to illegal activity.
Lolspeak was developed as a way to simulate the inner monologues of cats…er, "kittehz."
168.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 8:57 am
They can write any crazy ass crapola they want. The crazier the better, as far as I'm concerned.
169.
Dave in CA | September 2, 2010 at 8:59 am
That's the one!
170.
Dave in CA | September 2, 2010 at 9:03 am
Hooray and here's to hoping it finds its way to Ken Mehlman.
171.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 9:04 am
So they get to keep adding "evidence?" (Which we, of course, know to be crapola, so perhaps I should be hoping that they're allowed to do so.)
172.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 9:07 am
No evidence. Just case citations and legal arguments.
173.
Chris in Lathrop | September 2, 2010 at 9:23 am
So, after they appeal to the CA Supremes, with the likelihood they'll be summarily dismissed again, can they go to 9th Circuit or SCOTUS for more invalidation? Or do they finally get the wambulance they so desperately want?
Had to look it up today, but I LIKE the wambulance!
174.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 9:25 am
There isn't a federal question here. So I think California Supreme Court is the end of the line for them.
175.
Chris in Lathrop | September 2, 2010 at 9:29 am
Oops… I butterfingered it. Beautiful that there's no federal question here. Thanks for the info, Kathleen!
176.
Aya | September 2, 2010 at 9:30 am
Thanks Kathleen and Leo. I should know this from Civ Pro and the like, but I just wanted to make sure I understood what was going on.
177.
Bob | September 2, 2010 at 9:31 am
bluprntguy, that link to the website, is very informative and helpful
I'm going to pursue this further for myself in the Lutheran Church Canada,
This is and action that many of us could take, rather than just walking away
Thanks Richard, I will look forward to how it goes for you, I'm thinking it looks easier if you say you joined another church,
My next question would be if considering that the Church has such a responsibility for the souls of it's members , in order to fulfill this obligation it must make the ex-communication public. It would be nice if we could get statistics on the number of ex-communications, and also if they could be forced to document those who leave, because of sexual orientation. wonder if they could be forced to do that.
I do know that if a woman is ordained as a priest she recieves automatic ex-communication. And there is a whole number who have done so and celebrate this process.
I was also interested in the info on the webste that referred to countries that where Catholic, and how they were influenced by the Pope, but the United States was not mentioned as such a country, although it seems to be the only one left grasping to that church authority.
Yes I say in this culture war let's make ex-communication very fashionable, observable, and a goal worth working for.
178.
Carpool Cookie | September 2, 2010 at 9:34 am
I found a form for this on a U.K. website…will look for link.
You want to write to the church where you were baptized, especially. They even send you written confirmation when it's all complete.
One reason to do it is so you're OFFICIALLY removed from the Church records…in that they can no longer say, "We speak for XXXX and 1 Catholics." After you're officially scrubbed from the rolls, they should only be able to say, We speak for XXX Catholics MINUS bluprntguy."
179.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 9:36 am
You don't get training in the social skills of law when you go to correspondence school, I guess.
180.
Elizabeth Oakes | September 2, 2010 at 9:39 am
Well, be fair guys: the court used TWO syllables, DE-NIED, and it takes a LOT longer to sound that out than the word NO.
181.
Sagesse | September 2, 2010 at 9:42 am
Score! I'm so far behind in my e-mail I may never catch up.
182.
Bob | September 2, 2010 at 9:45 am
@Carpool Cookie, yes that's one reason, (so little impact why bother)
so let's count the other reasons, which may be of a more personal reason.
1.to show them we have outgrown their organization
2. to make them realize we are not afraid of them
3. as a personal right of passage and so on
183.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 2, 2010 at 10:01 am
We had an earthquake this morning? I'll have to check that out.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
184.
draNgNon | September 2, 2010 at 11:10 am
Havent read any comments yet but i am still laughing so hard. Indecisiveness, hahahahaha!
185.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 11:14 am
Here's the ORDER: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36826923/Pacific-Justic…
Thanks to Dazed Wheels for finding it.
186.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 11:16 am
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
No, I don't call that indecisive.
187.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 11:18 am
Seems extremely decisive.
188.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 11:18 am
Clearly Presiding Judge Scotland is quite the radical:
For you out-of-staters, Deukmejian and Wilson are conservative Republicans.
189.
Michael | September 2, 2010 at 11:20 am
Thank you to our Appeals Court for denying this nonsense. However, it's troubling and sad to see the extent to which shrill anti-gay pressure groups will go in order to impose their "religous beliefs" on the rest of us. May they fail again at our Supreme Court and may they start spending some of their wasted $$$ instead on helping the poor and needy as Christ commands us to do.
190.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 11:33 am
Because this has become a learning process for me, I'd like the why the petition was denied (well, other than common sense….). But maybe it's just as well that "they" aren't given any more legal information than they already think they have, since it's going on up the Ca. Supremes.
191.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 11:39 am
Okay, so what is the wambulance? Can somebody post a picture or a link so I can look it up?
192.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 11:39 am
Honestly, I'm surprised they haven't filed the appeal yet. You'd think they would have had it ready.
Oh, wait, did they think they might WIN?
Bwahahahahaha!
193.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 11:40 am
The waaahmbulance is what you call for a crybaby instead of an ambulance.
194.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 11:42 am
Have you had to deal with that phase in children's development when they come up with one hypothetical after another – each one a little more absurd than the last? You know, things like: "If you had to choose between being blasted out of a cannon or being dropped from a plane, which would you choose?" After a while, you have to excuse yourself and tell the kid that you have to do other things now…. I'm guessing that's how the court felt while reading this.
195.
Ann S. | September 2, 2010 at 11:42 am
Here you go: <a href="image/jpg;base64,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" rel="nofollow">wahmbulance picture
196.
Richard A. Walter (s | September 2, 2010 at 11:49 am
That not only sounds decisive to me, but also very precise, short, sweet, and to the diamond-tipped point!
197.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Yeah! Maybe the court just said, "BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!"
198.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 12:08 pm
(wrong place above; supposed to be here)
Yeah! Maybe the court just said, “BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!!”
199.
Adam G. | September 2, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Pass the popcorn, and the bacon-wrapped scallops. This should be fun to watch.
200.
Adam G. | September 2, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Not to mention that DENIED is so much harder to spell than NO.
201.
Sagesse | September 2, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Wow. We won't even dignify this with a response.
202.
Adam G. | September 2, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Won't that be nice if that's the case? I cannot wait to see these haters flail and scream and throw their little temper tantrums when the CA SC once again tells them "Sorry, but you can't have your way."
203.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Do they get to secure today's date and file electronically, or will the long holiday weekend keep them from having it date-stamped until 9/7? Mighty close to the deadline for Real Defendants to be forced to file for appeal…..
204.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Thus my reference to telling children "I'm busy now." (without actually saying 'this is getting silly and you're wasting my time')
205.
Kathleen | September 2, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Monday's the holiday isn't it? If they're going to appeal, I would expect them to file it by this weekend. But then, this is so much crazy that's it's even more difficult than usual to predict what's going on.
206.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Do they get away with filing electronically? At our rural courthouse, everything has to be filed in person. But I'm the first to admit that we're a step or two below the Ca. Supreme Court.
207.
Steven | September 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Kate, i think it will be fied electronically tomorrow or they already have tonight. I think the CA Supreme WILL SAY DENIED BY Wednesday or Thursday………… DENIED DENIED
208.
anonygrl | September 2, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I can haz cheezburger?
209.
Sagesse | September 2, 2010 at 1:14 pm
They called it.
Conservative Group Throws Hail Mary Pass on Prop 8
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=12024714675…
210.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Spaghetti tossers – YES.
211.
Sheryl Carver | September 2, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Kate:
Sorry I had to disappear so abruptly from our earlier "chicken" exchange. Sent an email to your throwaway. Hope I got it right.
Sheryl
212.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Yes -I wrote back.
213.
Brandy | September 2, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Awesome!
214.
AndrewPDX | September 2, 2010 at 2:46 pm
@Adam G…<cite>“Sorry, but you can’t have your way.”</cite>
LOL… What are they thinking? This is the California State Supreme Court, not Burger King.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
215.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Ka-ching, Sheryl! And people think producing good organic eggs is cheap…….. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a pullet surviving being egg-bound; huzzah to your success!
216.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 2, 2010 at 2:49 pm
This one is dedicated to PJI. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnl7HDWduAU
217.
Steven | September 2, 2010 at 2:52 pm
they think CA Supreme Court will rule in their favor… omg pleaze!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
218.
Ronnie | September 2, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Ok here you guys?gals go…Wisconsin is trying to criminalize same-gender marriage….Just like what was done to the Lovings they plan to make it illegal for same-gender couples to go to another state then return to Wisconsin on threat of a $10,000 fine & imprisonment for up to 9 months….Can you say Fascists?
Please sign this petition…..<3…Ronnie:
http://gayrights.change.org/petitions/view/end_the_criminalization_of_same-sex_marriage_in_wisconsin
219.
Kate | September 2, 2010 at 2:54 pm
oy veh – teh spin; teh spin!
220.
Sheryl, Mormon Mothe | September 2, 2010 at 3:34 pm
This rather reminds me of the extermination order that was on the books in Missouri from 1838 to 1976 making it legal to kill Mormons. I'm sure that after the Mormons moved west the extermination order was forgotten. However, it was on the books. Yes, Mormons from a different era understood what it meant to be persecuted which is another reason I can't understand how we are now supporting discrimination.
Sheryl, Mormon Mother
221.
Chris in Lathrop | September 2, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Beautiful!
222.
Tom B. | September 2, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Okay, I just HAVE to put this here
[youtube
223.
Mark M. (Seattle) | September 3, 2010 at 2:51 am
http://www.landlord-success.com/wp-content/upload…
224.
BK | September 3, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Oh, how I'd hate to live in Imperial County. Watching as my taxpayer dollars paid for discrimination against me… *sigh* how wonderful. –rolls eyes–
225.
Anna | October 18, 2010 at 8:16 am
I am sadden that people against Proposition 8 can reverse it when it was voted by the people for the people of California. What next? Why aren't they willing to take a stand for the people. This is not right!!!!!
226.
Ann S. | October 18, 2010 at 8:18 am
Anna, why do you hate the US Constitution?
Do you not believe in equal protection for all?
I am saddened that you hate the US Constitution.
227.
Ronnie | October 18, 2010 at 8:29 am
Anna this is right….get over it…LGBT people are the people also…tax us equal treat us equal….We the People means ALL of the people not we the heterosexuals only…Anti-gay people like you are standing for their selfish selves only & Fascist dictatorship over people who will not bow down to you…I mean your beliefs & definitions….you don't have the right to vote on anything that applies to my personal life…& that is a FACT…learn how to live your life according to Constitution & stop violating our 1st & 14th amendment rights as tax paying American citizens…. <3…Ronnie
228.
Adam G | October 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm
It is totally right. Laws passed by bigotry are unconstitutional and should not be allowed to stand. Why do you hate America, Anna? Why do you hate freedom and equal rights? Why do you hate the Constitution?
229.
Bob | October 18, 2010 at 1:20 pm
your sadness is a good indication that reality is sinking in for you, it's a normal process in grief when you loose something, what you lost is the belief that you are right, and you will move through grief, and realize a new sense of freedom that discrimination prevented you from experiencing before, sadness, is good, and I bet there is anger along with it, thank you for sharing your grief. Change has come to America free at last thank God for that
230. Flash 9th Circuit Hearing&hellip | December 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm
[...] in fact they were asked by the “Pacific Justice Institute” exactly that question. PJI was first denied by the the 3rd District, and later by the California Supreme [...]
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.